Sunday, March 14, 2010

Al Gore has been keeping a low-profile ever since the mounting climate scandals that occurred before and after Copenhagen, where he was embarrassed by a typical alarmist exaggeration that was, once again, exposed as a lie by climate skeptics (a.k.a., "deniers"). He's been challenged for years to debate credible authorities and scientists on CO2's role in climate warming, but he usually manages to elude any forum that isn't tightly controlled by his thugs and political operatives.

He was shredded by Apple's stock holders just the other day for his global warming orthodoxy in the face of all these scandals, even though he was reelected to Apple's board (no surprise there...Apple is run by left-leaning folks out on the Left Coast).

So, feeling the need to respond to all the criticism, what does Al Gore do? He writes an OP-ED piece for the liberal New York Times, of course. Since no one can answer him directly in an opinion piece, I will take this opportunity to respond to his bullshit (trite and repetitive) below, point-by-point. And there's no way I could do a better job than some of the great skeptical scientists out there. But here goes...

But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

Just two mistakes? Careful scientific work? Carbon is global warming pollution that's making our atmosphere into a sewer? Sorry, Al, but you're ignoring the mound of scandals recently revealed. There weren't just a few mistakes. There were many, along with multiple instances of unethical scientific practices.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.

Hey, thanks for finally admitting that there are mistakes and errors in the evidence that, according to you, proves "thuh duh-bate is over." What's important to examine is the nature of these "mistakes." These aren't just mistakes; they're blatant attempts to politicize a supposedly scientific report by scattering it with "evidence" that amounts to nothing more than propaganda and fear.

There's that word consensus again. That's Al Gore's (and many alarmists') favorite tactic of deflection when attempting to avoid debate. But the 'overwhelming consensus' is a lie. Even if it was true, consensus opinion has nothing to do with real science, as history has shown us again and again. The maverick in science (like Galileo) is usually proved correct when confronting the consensus's foregone conclusion.

And furthermore (if there were a consensus), does anyone out there REALLY believe this group of politically-connected believers remains UNCHANGED? The so-called consensus is running for the hills because of all the scrutiny. On the contrary, the "consensus" is QUITE changed, Al.

[The panel's scientists] probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century...

That's not what this article just said. Scientists have just withdrawn some of the estimates of supposed human-induced sea-rising. More fallout from the scandals, because now people are paying attention and not just accepting what these climate fear mongers say anymore.

For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Actually, the idiots said this January was the warmest on-record...not second warmest (get your facts straight, Al). Temperature records of 130 years should be, to any scientist, a problem when discerning longterm climate patterns and using them to make predictions. First, how accurate were the records of 130 years ago? They're not even accurate today (see reasons why here). Second, it's a statistical no-no to look at such a small range of time (130 years) to pronounce climate doom, considering the climate history of Earth spans of 4.5-billion years.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

Since we've already inserted the obligatory, debate-avoiding word consensus, let's make sure we use the Holocaust-doubting, ad hominem rejoinder and call us climate skeptics "deniers." Yes, a certain subset of alarmist scientists did just, laughably, make the claim that 2000 through 2009 was the warmest decade "on-record." However, disgraced IPCC scientist Phil Jones (CRU scandal) recently admitted that there has been no warming in 15 years, and he even--FINALLY--admitted that there was probably a global medieval warm period and even other earlier periods of global warming in Earth's history that preceded the industrial age. Therefore, the Earth has warmed in the distant past for reasons other than those extolled by you, Al, oh great 'creator of Internet.'

...yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States.

This is the warming-causes-cooling-and-warming tactic used in climate revisionism, and not ALL scientists have agreed with this. There are many problems with this assertion, but let's just take one that flies in the face of something Al just said a few paragraphs ago. If increased evaporation due to warming has caused all this darn record snow (and record freezing cold), rain, and tropical cyclones we've seen, wouldn't that increased evaporation also prevent the seas from rising? (Which, itself, has already been debunked.) The problem is that you and your ilk have long used empirical evidence when it suits your propaganda needs (i.e., supposed empirical weather events that you associate with climate warming). When antithetical weather appears, you either claim that La Nina is involved (that's masking warming) or you ridiculously claim that the cold weather is being caused by warming. That's what I call climate revisionism. It's called "global warming"...not "regional warming, when it suits my theory."

Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

But Al...is there a such thing as a 'saturation point'? Is there a point where increasing CO2 no longer makes a difference (i.e., holds in no more heat)? There are scientists (you haven't talked with) who agree that there is such a physical state in the atmosphere. The fact is that there is no evidence that current CO2 levels (rising though they are) are contributing to warming. Even the IPCC's erroneous, award-winning report only allots that CO2 is "probably" causing observed warming. "Probably" in science DOES NOT cut it. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas STILL, even in its presently increasing concentration. Also, our data show that tropospheric warming (i.e., in the atmosphere) has not occurred (increasing CO2 has not warmed this part of the atmosphere as predicted); all of the "warming" has been attributed to the surface level, and the temperature collection methods at the surface are problematic.

CO2 is a 'pollutant'? You're exhaling it right now with your big, fat head, Al. That means you're contaminating my atmosphere! Never mind that plants MUST HAVE CO2 to provide us with O2; even grade school science students can understand photosynthesis.

Extinctions have NOT accelerated. The last part of this bullshit paragraph falls back onto the same trite fear tactics. See the GASP! series and warmlist if you want to scare yourself to death; you can read about the THOUSANDS of ills attributed to manmade warming. Once you read them all, you'll start giggling to yourself if you have half a brain, because it's obvious how much of an overreach it all is.

The common denominator of Al's proselytizing is FEAR. Everything he writes or states is DRIPPING with fear. If you need to hear more fear on animals, read our Animal Death Watch series too.

So, where has Al Gore been? Well, just read the articles. Welcome back, Al. We DID NOT miss your stupid crap.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. But in the last three months, as global warming has gone from a scientific near-certitude to the subject of satire, Gore -- the public face of global warming -- has been silent on the topic.

The former vice president apparently finds it inconvenient even to answer calls to testify before the U.S. Senate. You can call him Al . . . but he won't call back.

Al Gore has been found. The former vice president and green guru has been MIA since the end of December, but he cropped up to be abused at the Apple stockholders meeting in Cupertino, Calif. Gore has been missing conveniently during the same period where climate scientists have come under increased scrutiny for bogus claims, doctored science and use of propaganda. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize and Oscar winner was last seen on CBS in late December. While the TV outlets have been running archival footage of the climate advocate, he hasn’t been interviewed on air throughout the controversy.

He’s still been on the receiving end of many jokes during that time. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said on Twitter: “It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’” GOP Sen. James Inhofe’s grandkids built an igloo on the National Mall, naming it “Al Gore’s New Home.”

Now even Apple shareholders are unhappy with the Goreacle, delivering “harsh comments about former Vice President Al Gore’s record,” according to CNET. One shareholder said Gore shouldn’t be reelected to the Apple board, saying Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” reported CNET. Gore didn’t respond directly, but his spot in the front row indicates his hibernation may be ending.